Has it been 90 days yet or did the counter get reset by mistake when this site was updated?

Having read Janis Ian's brief story about managers and record companies I can see why she'd have no great love of them.
But I truly don't know why it's all so focussed on music, I've seen DivXs of movies upto 12 months before their premiere and they were definately not air gap recordings, some look like telecine transfers although with DivX it's hard to tell but either way clearly Hollywood has got some major leaks. Unlike music though once you've seen a movie even on the little screen the desire to see it on the big screen kind of diminishes so this has the potential to do far more real harm to the movie business than mp3 could ever do to the recording industry.
Yet Hollywood is causing major grief in the broadcast sector over DRM for HD but that's not the problem, anyone who wants to pirate a movie seems to be able to get a hold of it even before it hit the silver screen let alone pay TV or free to air.
Bob.

Not that I don't think that downloading illegal music is wrong, BUT.... my brothers band distributes some of their songs online, made their own CD's with CD burners, and is now going to get ~300 silver disks pressed. Not so inronicly, 2/3 of those things they used to get their music out are things that the music industry has said promote piracy (and you don't hear about CD burners anymore. Gee, could it be because many industry giants to electronics AND music!?)

If it wasn't for the first two, my brother & his band would have to go to a label to get the third done. How else would they get the fans & people going to their concerts?


hay farss, did you hear that a guy who reviewed movie screeners was a major leak for movies online? Maybe they should start going after the source instead of the end user (I've been told by MANY people that P2P sites have a fraction of what's out there. IRC is where you can get anything (litterly), but it's not gone after as much because IRC isn't as easy to track as P2P & IM's)

What America needs is an entirely brand new Music Industry started by MUSICIANS that will grow up into an entierly new MUSICIAN'S industry.

The current music industry grew up entirely around a hub of distributers who found a way to own everything unrelated to distributing becuase they were the original exclusive gate keeper. It is not really a music industry it is a distributiuon industry.

The new improved Music Industry must return Gate Keeping and ownershgip to the artist.

Other than distributing a product, I fail to understand why record companies are entitled to even 10% of their earnings and why artists are responsible to reimburse distributers for costs out of their royalties and "advances." The cost of distributing music has dropped dramatically over the last 30 years but the portion owned and recouped by the distributers has encrouched upon the artist. Ninety percent of "successful" MTV musicians are flat broke.

I made a decision back in 1968 that I did not want to even try to "make it big." I was a very good guitar player and very much in demand, but I knew then that I would never make money at it unless I remained away from the main stream. I made more doing regional session work, playing in a cover band, commercials, and being chief musician at a church than I ever could trying to "make it big."

I am for any movement that will topple the so-called "music" industry and return focus, ownership and control to the musician.

Sounds like a geat idea, Bob. I could and would support that! One would think that the musicians could form some kind of a co-op where they owned the distribution company as well.

FWIW, guys....musicians don't WANT to be gatekeepers, administrators, managers, accountants, disbursors....They want to be creative. They want to make money. End of story.
Labels, for better or worse, can take a collective group of artists that on their own, could never afford an acountant, manager, lawyer, and provide those services at minimum cost to the collective. Without the label there, there is no collective, there is no support, therefore there is no music. It's gotten too big, and now the monster is trying to feed itself and starving, but the monster is necessary. It's like government at this point.

... musicians don't WANT to be gatekeepers, administrators, managers, accountants, disbursors...

I understand and appreciate that idea, but couldn't they still create some sort of co-op and be the "boss" who is hiring and firing the "gatekeepers, administrators, managers, accountants, and disbursors"?

Or is it truly as lost cause as you say?

Of course they can form a co-op. And then you have a record label. Right back to how it all started in the first place. So, what you're proposing is burning down the house to build a new one. And I don't know that I disagree with that, except that the majority of the occupants of the current house will likely go to work in the new house, and they'd bring it right back to where it is now. They wanna eat too.
There are two levels at play here; The professional that either doesn't want or can't get a record contract, and so they struggle and struggle, and you never really hear of them except at a regional level. They are the ones that benefit from the "new" marketing and filesharing. They WANT more exposure. This also applies to musicians like me, who have either already had the exposure, or are in a niche market. We benefit from the new marketing/file sharing format.

Then you have the next level. Dave Mathews was the first level for a long time. I was there in Seattle when he was discovered, and overnight, BMG transformed him from a bar band to superstardom. He went from standing to gain the most from the filesharing concept to standing to gain the least/be hurt the most from filesharing. Once you're at that top level, you can only be hurt, not helped.
Right now, there are a couple artists making a big deal out of seeing 100k in revenues per year from online, viral marketing sales. Any artist on a major label would be immediately let go if they had an album not do that well in 3 months. I know, I was one of them. Figure 30-50K to make a budget record, and that much again in marketing, there isn't a lot of profit if the album only grosses 100K and you've got marketing, recoup, admin, publishing, tour advance, and a host of other expenses.
But to the guy playing in a bar in Jersey, 100K of income sounds great, so Taxi, MusicNet, and other organizations make a lot of hay out of the 100K, but it's really dishonest, IMO. No one talks about the fact the artist doesn't see the 100K. And wouldn't in any real world situation, because even at best, the artist has to pay for record development, and any record development is going to cost some coin. A lot of coin. I'm working part-time on my last record for Virgin, and I'm into it for over 18K now, with at least another half of that to go in just recording costs. Doing it in my studio that I own that I owe no one anything for....And if it doesn't do at least half a mil in sales for Virgin, it'll be in the bargain bin in 120 days.

Reality check. Not all "musicians" are truly creative, in fact most are mediocre at best. For every "star", earning big bucks there got to be 1,000 just barely getting by. Like within any creative field, be it musicans, doctors, lawyers, engineers, whatever you consider, the cream rises to the top. Not surprising in the music business, movies and TV, that 10% of the top artists earn 90% of the cash.

Statements like artists don't want to be managers, accountants, gatekeepers, etc.. applies to ALL fields, not just "artists". I always get a kick when "artists" think they can just sit back and just be "creative" and ignore the details of running a business, which is after what they're really doing. The failure rate of "artists" and the fact many end up in the poor house is because they don't pay attention to the details and let the sharks in the industry rob them blind. The "entertainment" business ALWAYS has had more than its share of con artists, out right crooks and those eagar to make a fast buck. For example what happened to many black artists during the period from the 30's through the 70's is shameful.

The current "system" is set up by and controlled by big business designed to reap huge profits and control everything. The music industry has ALWAYS been excessively greedly and so has the movie industry. Current copyright laws are antiquated, grossly obsolete and have the distinct stench of lopsided disproportionate bias where the general public is not well served as we've seen in recent law, where John Q. public has few rights relative to any "entertainment" product he plops down his cash for.

Sooner or later the pendulum once it goes too far right, snaps back hard left. The time for that to happen is long past due. Way too much power, corruption, influence peddling and plain naked greed exists in the current "system". Too few people control and profit from a industy where its all too common for the average "artist" to get used, the public to feel cheated and the overall quality of the "creative" work produced showing an unmistakeby spiral downward.

It's more like for every 1 top artist, there are 5000 barely getting by. So what's your point?
Everyone who is a MUSICIAN is truly creative. This doesn't take into account the Britney Spears, Jessica Simpsons, or other mega-star created by the entertainment industry. On the other hand, guys like Doug Beck, who write these songs for the megastars, ARE true musicians, and they DON'T want to be businessmen. They want to create. So they go to a label to manage all of that for them. Just like a doctor who doesn't do his own taxes, most doctors that are in the very high income bracket hire a team to manage accounting, purchasing, etc. Like any business. They want a team to manage the things that bog down their day to day creativity and work flow so they can focus on what counts; the music. Or any other art form. The cream rises to the top because they are supported by the team they assemble. There is no star, and never has been a star that doesn't have a very good support team beneath them. And likely there never will be a star without a good support team. That's what an ethical label provides. But when we've reached the point that the BMG's, EMI's, effectively own every small label in the industry now, it's bound to be out of hand.
However, this has nothing to do with copyright. I explained the two groups that benefit from both sides of the argument, and if you can present a response related to that, then we've got a discussion. Please backup your comments with any copyrighted works you've registered and received ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or other performance or administrative royalty from, because without that, you don't understand how the process works. Whether you like it or not, you've got to understand how it currently works in order to present an alternative.
We'll have a new president of ASCAP here shortly, and if the person wins that I suspect will win the election, we'll also have a stronger advocate for alternatives to copyrighted work accesses. It's a start in the right direction from a powerful rights organization.